Hi,
A few months ago, we noticed that the current git-python version did not work with GPG signed commits[1]. Upstream's[2] been dead for almost 8 months now. There is however a pull request that adds support for GPG signed commits[3].
Since upstream is dead, and the pull request will not be accepted until someone steps up to revive the project, should I file a bug and request the Fedora maintainer to carry the patch? Would that be preferred over infra carrying a hotfix?
I think it'll be good to request package maintainers to GPG sign their commits[4].
[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/git-python/Ralph $20Bean/git-python/hFfA9gXkz6s/b9VrRDaypkMJ [2] https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython [3] https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/pulls [4] http://mikegerwitz.com/papers/git-horror-story.html
El Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:39:21 +1100 Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com escribió:
Hi,
A few months ago, we noticed that the current git-python version did not work with GPG signed commits[1]. Upstream's[2] been dead for almost 8 months now. There is however a pull request that adds support for GPG signed commits[3].
Since upstream is dead, and the pull request will not be accepted until someone steps up to revive the project, should I file a bug and request the Fedora maintainer to carry the patch? Would that be preferred over infra carrying a hotfix?
I think it'll be good to request package maintainers to GPG sign their commits[4].
As the package maintainer file a bug report please.
Dennis
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:50 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
As the package maintainer file a bug report please.
Filed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037922
I'm trying to extract it as a patch over 0.3, but the master and 0.3 branches were developed in parallel and the patch doesn't just fit in incrementally.
Hi,
The relevant bug[1] is fixed and updates pushed to stable for Fedora and EL6. However, I still get the error while pushing signed commits to SCM. Are the infra machines not yet up to date, or is it another issue? :(
[asinha@ankur-laptop labyrinth(master %>)]$ git push origin master Counting objects: 18, done. Delta compression using up to 4 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (4/4), done. Writing objects: 100% (4/4), 1.95 KiB | 0 bytes/s, done. Total 4 (delta 1), reused 0 (delta 0) remote: Traceback (most recent call last): remote: File "./hooks/post-receive-chained.d/post-receive-fedmsg", line 47, in <module> remote: commits = map(_build_commit, lines) remote: File "./hooks/post-receive-chained.d/post-receive-fedmsg", line 31, in _build_commit remote: name=commit.author.name, remote: File "/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gitdb/util.py", line 238, in __getattr__ remote: self._set_cache_(attr) remote: File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/git/objects/commit.py", line 132, in _set_cache_ remote: self._deserialize(StringIO(stream.read())) remote: File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/git/objects/commit.py", line 443, in _deserialize remote: self.author.name = self.author.name.decode(self.encoding) remote: LookupError: unknown encoding: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- To ssh://ankursinha@pkgs.fedoraproject.org/labyrinth 31452aa..e9b8989 master -> master
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010706
Dne 4.12.2013 03:39, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
Hi,
A few months ago, we noticed that the current git-python version did not work with GPG signed commits[1]. Upstream's[2] been dead for almost 8 months now. There is however a pull request that adds support for GPG signed commits[3].
There are also other issues with GitPython package [1]. Better would be to use some replacement if possible.
Vít
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 13:26 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 4.12.2013 03:39, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
Hi,
A few months ago, we noticed that the current git-python version did not work with GPG signed commits[1]. Upstream's[2] been dead for almost 8 months now. There is however a pull request that adds support for GPG signed commits[3].
There are also other issues with GitPython package [1]. Better would be to use some replacement if possible.
Agreed, for exampl I've reported upstream an fd/memory leak in GitPython more than a year and a half ago.
pygit2 seems to be much more actively developed: https://github.com/libgit2/pygit2
Dennis, would you accept a patch that moves rpkg/fedpkg from GitPython to pygit2?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Sun, 08 Dec 2013 11:33:29 +0800 Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org escribió:
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 13:26 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 4.12.2013 03:39, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
Hi,
A few months ago, we noticed that the current git-python version did not work with GPG signed commits[1]. Upstream's[2] been dead for almost 8 months now. There is however a pull request that adds support for GPG signed commits[3].
There are also other issues with GitPython package [1]. Better would be to use some replacement if possible.
Agreed, for exampl I've reported upstream an fd/memory leak in GitPython more than a year and a half ago.
pygit2 seems to be much more actively developed: https://github.com/libgit2/pygit2
Dennis, would you accept a patch that moves rpkg/fedpkg from GitPython to pygit2?
we would need some major regression testing but sure. there is updates pending for el6, f18, f19, and f20 adding gpg support, it is available in rawhide now.
Dennis
I also use pygit2 for development BTW the relevant package review is nearly completed now:
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ankur Sinha -
Christopher Meng -
Dennis Gilmore -
Mathieu Bridon -
Vít Ondruch